Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31156839›Full record

ArticleEuropean journal of hospital pharmacy : science and practice2016

Therapeutic enquiries about biological agents as a tool to identify safety aspects and patterns of use.

D Salat, R Llop, C Aguilera, I Danés, M Bosch, C Asensio, F Castañeda, E Esterlich, A Vallano

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in European journal of hospital pharmacy : science and practice, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

D SalatClinical Pharmacology Service, Hospital Universitari Vall d'Hebron, Fundació Institut Català de Farmacologia, Barcelona, Spain.
R LlopClinical Pharmacology Service, Hospital Universitari Vall d'Hebron, Fundació Institut Català de Farmacologia, Barcelona, Spain.
C AguileraClinical Pharmacology Service, Hospital Universitari Vall d'Hebron, Fundació Institut Català de Farmacologia, Barcelona, Spain.
I DanésClinical Pharmacology Service, Hospital Universitari Vall d'Hebron, Fundació Institut Català de Farmacologia, Barcelona, Spain.
M BoschClinical Pharmacology Service, Hospital Universitari Vall d'Hebron, Fundació Institut Català de Farmacologia, Barcelona, Spain.
C AsensioClinical Pharmacology Service, Hospital Universitari Vall d'Hebron, Fundació Institut Català de Farmacologia, Barcelona, Spain.
F CastañedaClinical Pharmacology Service, IDIBELL, Hospital Universitari de Bellvitge, L'Hospitalet de Llobregat, Barcelona, Spain.
E EsterlichClinical Pharmacology Service, IDIBELL, Hospital Universitari de Bellvitge, L'Hospitalet de Llobregat, Barcelona, Spain.
A VallanoClinical Pharmacology Service, IDIBELL, Hospital Universitari de Bellvitge, L'Hospitalet de Llobregat, Barcelona, Spain.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundBiotechnological agents (BA) are increasingly being used in clinical practice. We aimed to determine, whether enquiries about them to a therapeutic consultation service have also become more frequent, and to describe the information requested in these consultations.

methodsWe retrospectively reviewed 14 104 therapeutic consultations collected in a computerised database between 2000 and 2014. Enquiries about BA (monoclonal antibodies, fusion proteins or cytokine antagonists) were chosen. Information on the type of BA, underlying condition, type of enquiry and affiliation of the enquirer was retrieved and compared with data from consultations about other agents.

resultsDuring the study period, 365 enquiries about 30 different BA were received. Only 4% of them were received before 2004, while 48.8% were received after 2010. Rituximab, infliximab, adalimumab and etanercept were most frequently enquired about. Agent selection (n=184) and/or adverse effects (n=174) were the most frequent reasons for making an enquiry. Most enquiries about an agent selection were made about an off-label use (n=164), mainly for systemic autoimmune diseases (n=61). Over half of the enquiries about adverse effects were about their teratogenic potential (n=96). Enquiries about BA more often requested an opinion (87.7% vs 77.7%) were made by physicians (89.9% vs 76.9%), from a hospital (81.6% vs 44.5%) and regarded a specific patient (87.4% vs 74.5%).

conclusionsTherapeutic consultations about BA are increasing. Most of them are related to uncertainties of health professionals regarding any new medicine: their off-label use, actual adverse effects or the teratogenic potential of the involved agents.

Indexed as

CLINICAL PHARMACOLOGYJOURNALISM (see Medical Journalism)PHARMACOTHERAPY

Identifiers

PMID31156839
PMCPMC6451548

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.